SCOUG-HELP Mailing List Archives
Return to [ 00 | 
June | 
2003 ]
<< Previous Message << 
 >> Next Message >>
 
 
 
| Date: |      Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:54:07 +0100  |  
| From: |      "Info 4 SYNass"   <Info@SYNass.NET >   |  
| Reply-To: |    |  
| To: |    |  
| Subject: |  Re: SCOUG-Help: HDD cache size choice with OS/2  |  
 
=====================================================  
If you are responding to someone asking for help who  
may not be a member of this list, be sure to use the  
REPLY TO ALL feature of your email program.  
=====================================================  
 
Hi Steve  
I do fully agree with you ;-)  
 
My intention is to find out if there are any / some (technical)  
restrictions =  
 
OS/2 cannot deal with because it's too influenced by a monopoly  
playground ;-(  
 
If 8MB cache works with OS/2 then I do not hesitate to choose but =  
 
I would choose 2MB cache if I know 8MB cache works with M$ only !!  
 
Thanks for your comment.  
Regards, svobi  
 =  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
scarter@vcnet.com on 02.06.2003 19:31:17  
Please respond to scoug-help@scoug.com  
To:	scoug-help@scoug.com  
cc:	 =  
 
Subject:	SCOUG-Help: HDD cache size choice with OS/2  
 
subj. was: SCOUG-Help: HDD choice & settings with OS/2 !?  
 
Hello Svobi: =  
 
I, too, am considering a new, larger hard drive. =  
 
 
Memory prices have dropped so much that HD manufacturers =  
 
are now including larger caches on their high-end offerings. =  
 
Soon, 8MB caches will be standard. =  
 
  =  
 
As file sizes increase, larger caches become more useful. I'm =  
 
considering an IBM 120GB drive for my wife's win98 machine.  =  
 
Today, the difference between a 2MB and 8MB cache is around =  
 
$12 on PriceWatch  -- a small price to pay for obsolescence =  
 
protection and the (small) potential performance increase. =  
 
 
It's not clear to me that there is significant operating system =  
 
influence on the HD hardware caches size choice, save that the =  
 
largest possible HPFS software cache is 2MB -- small by today's =  
 
standards. [HPFS 386 does allow up to 64MB I've read].  =  
 
 
Cache requirements continue to increase, so bigger _IS_ better. =  
 
I'm (trying to) plan for the future.   =  
 
 
 --Steve           =  
 
          =  
 
++++++++++++++  
On 6/2/03, Albert M. Svoboda  wrote, in part:  
>  
>Hello everbody  
>  
>How does a HDD cache of either 2MB or 8BM affect OS/2 ???  
>  
>Does one need to choose the 2MB only or is the bigger cache =  
>a(n intelligent) choice too ??  
>  
>Thanks in advance for your advice ;-)  
>  
>svobi  
 
 
 
 
************************************************  
>>>  Say  NO  to  H T M L  in Mail and News  <<<  
>>>   AGAINST  TERROR   +++   AGAINST  WAR   <<<  
************************************************=  
 
=====================================================  
 
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message  
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,  
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-help".  
 
For problems, contact the list owner at  
"rollin@scoug.com".  
 
=====================================================  
 
  
<< Previous Message << 
 >> Next Message >>
Return to [ 00 | 
June | 
2003 ] 
  
  
The Southern California OS/2 User Group
 P.O. Box 26904
 Santa Ana, CA  92799-6904, USA
Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group.  ALL RIGHTS 
RESERVED. 
 
SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group.
OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International 
Business Machines Corporation.
All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.
 
  |